World Day Against Cyber Censorship

Researchers and digital rights groups note that internet censorship typically relies on a mix of technical and legal controls.

Common methods include blocking entire websites or specific URLs through IP or DNS blocking, filtering keywords, slowing or throttling certain services, requiring platforms to remove content, shutting down mobile data or whole networks, and using surveillance laws or licensing rules to pressure companies and users.

These tools are often combined to make censorship harder to evade and less visible to the public.  

Online censorship directly interferes with the work of journalists by blocking news sites, removing critical reports, and criminalizing the sharing of “false” or “harmful” information in vague terms.

Organizations like Reporters Without Borders report that governments increasingly pressure platforms to take down investigative stories, filter politically sensitive topics, or limit coverage of protests and conflicts.

This reduces the diversity of viewpoints available, makes it harder for people to verify facts, and can push independent reporting onto harder‑to‑find or riskier channels.  

Experts usually distinguish between necessary, narrowly tailored restrictions and broad censorship.

Blocking content such as child sexual abuse material, non-consensual intimate images, or clear incitement to violence is widely recognized in international human rights law as a permissible limitation when it is lawful, necessary, and proportionate.

Problems arise when states or powerful actors use similar tools to silence criticism, opposition, or minority voices, or when restrictions are so broad and vague that they chill legitimate expression and reporting.  

Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) encrypt a user’s internet traffic and route it through servers in other locations, which can hide browsing from local internet providers and bypass geographic or political blocks.

The Tor network goes further by sending traffic through multiple volunteer-run relays, making it harder to trace the origin and destination of communications.

While not foolproof and sometimes blocked themselves, both technologies are widely used by activists, journalists, and ordinary users in heavily restricted environments to access blocked sites and share information with reduced risk of retaliation.  

International bodies rely heavily on Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which protect the right to seek, receive, and impart information “regardless of frontiers” and through any media, including the internet.

Restrictions on this right must be clearly established by law, pursue a legitimate aim such as protecting national security or the rights of others, and be necessary and proportionate.

The UN Human Rights Committee and Special Rapporteurs repeatedly state that these principles apply online just as they do offline.  

Both can play a role. Governments often compel platforms to remove content, hand over user data, or block accounts, sometimes using broad “fake news,” extremism, or security laws.

At the same time, social media companies enforce their own terms of service and automated moderation systems, which may disproportionately remove political or sensitive content, especially in languages and regions where they lack staff and context expertise.

Scholars and NGOs argue that this combination of state pressure and opaque corporate policies can create powerful, but hard‑to‑challenge, forms of private censorship.  

Digital rights organizations recommend a cautious, informed approach. Users can learn basic digital security, such as using strong passwords, enabling two‑factor authentication, updating software, and choosing reputable encrypted messaging services.

They can support independent media and digital rights groups financially or by sharing their work.

In more restrictive environments, experts advise understanding local laws, using vetted circumvention tools, and avoiding sharing sensitive information that could endanger oneself or others.

Seeking guidance from reputable NGOs or security helplines can help tailor safety practices to local risks.